h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Nerd I think you are or avoiding several fundamenta points here so I will break them down for you. ( I am even going to use words that you can understand.)

No one here is arguing that a babies lives are put to end by abortions (terminations).

All of us think that we should go to all reasonable efforts(with in the law, AND with compassionate regard for those who are thinking of termination) to find another course of action.

See we want the same things as you.

What we dont agree about though are these points.

Your belief that you have a religious right or duty to prevent people seeking and preforming terminations in free safe and legal ways. Now if you presented us with any part of the bible which specifically speaks out against termination go ahead.

Going on from that, that anything you do choose to take from the bible must therefore be applied to all.

Nerd, if you don't consider operations to save the life of a woman as abortion, why use the term 'partial birth abortion', since it seems in many circumstances leading to such unfortunate events (such as severe hydrocephelus), the foetus wouldn't end up surviving even if there was no medical intervention, and has to be removed at some point to save the life of the mother. The least risky procedure would seem the best one, and by the definition you quoted, such a procedure wouldn't even be *defined* as an abortion.

If you don't have a problem with procedures aimed at reducing serious risks to women's health, it seems you started this thread by raising the wrong question.



On the wider issue, I *do* understand that many people may have difficulty with the fact that when abortions are legally permitted to 'safeguard the mental or physical health of the mother', that category can get stretched to include women who simply don't want a child.

Whilst I can see that (even excluding the more obvious cases of conception after rape or abuse) carrying on to the point of giving birth to a child that you don't want does carry potential physical and mental heath risks, looking at the figures as a whole there can be an impression of dishonesty or rule-bending and I personally think it would be better if the UK law simply allowed women to have abortions after appropriate counselling.
If risks to health are considered as being implicit in carrying any foetus to term, personally I think it would be better if the law stated that explicitly and allowed abortions before 24 weeks without the requirement for further medical justification.

"Your belief that you have a religious right or duty to prevent people seeking and preforming terminations in free safe and legal ways. Now if you presented us with any part of the bible which specifically speaks out against termination go ahead."

No, I would not say that this is a religious thing. People are people no matter what faith you are.

"Going on from that, that anything you do choose to take from the bible must therefore be applied to all."

um, I'm not saying it doesn't exactly except to you, but where have I said that the Bible proves anything? I think there was once that I quoted the bible somewhere on this thread in response to someone's question about what the bible says, or was it on another thread?

Or are you voicing that old argument which I've also already answered: "Why are you forcing your religous view that the fetus is human on the rest of us?" And my answer is that it is not me who is forcing my view on someone seeking an abortion, it is that person forcing their view on the child. And I do mean "forcing" as in the use of force, which liberals seem to always oppose so much in wartime, in the strongest possible way.

Nerd42

I found this page very interesting.




It certainly gives some very deep insights into personal experiences of terminations and some proffesional ones.

Nerd, I still dont get why you are getting your knickers in a twist (panties in a bunch) over a womans right to choose.

You say people are people, well good for you, you have managed to work out that saying the thing that is the thing I am saying it is, is the thing I am saying it is.

Cheese is cheese, Theres another one for you.

Lets tell you again under NEITHER medical nor legal definitions are feotuses prior to 24 weeks people. Yes we are terminating them but their life is wholly dependant on the life of the mother.

As any potential life is ENTIRELY dependant on the life of the mother what right have you got to dictate anything unless you are the mother in question?

Are you going to ban pregnant women from smoking and drinking, those activities can kill unborn ikkle cutie pie babies (I am deliberately using emotive language to sway you in favour of joining the campaign to ban preganant women from drinking, smoking, taking drugs, eating tuna (mercury), eating mayonaise or soft cheese.) and cause birth defects.

You are simply attempting to force PEOPLE, women to be specific to follow your rules cause it makes you feel good. If you really want to save PEOPLES lives from being needlessly and randomly destroyed why not stand on Pnnsylvania avenue waving placards that ask for a ban on cluster bombs?

I found this page very interesting.




It certainly gives some very deep insights into personal experiences of terminations and some proffesional ones.

Nerd, I still dont get why you are getting your knickers in a twist (panties in a bunch) over a womans right to choose.

You say people are people, well good for you, you have managed to work out that saying the thing that is the thing I am saying it is, is the thing I am saying it is.

Cheese is cheese, Theres another one for you.

Lets tell you again under NEITHER medical nor legal definitions are feotuses prior to 24 weeks people. Yes we are terminating them but their life is wholly dependant on the life of the mother.

As any potential life is ENTIRELY dependant on the life of the mother what right have you got to dictate anything unless you are the mother in question?

Are you going to ban pregnant women from smoking and drinking, those activities can kill unborn ikkle cutie pie babies (I am deliberately using emotive language to sway you in favour of joining the campaign to ban preganant women from drinking, smoking, taking drugs, eating tuna (mercury), eating mayonaise or soft cheese.) and cause birth defects.

You are simply attempting to force PEOPLE, women to be specific to follow your rules cause it makes you feel good. If you really want to save PEOPLES lives from being needlessly and randomly destroyed why not stand on Pnnsylvania avenue waving placards that ask for a ban on cluster bombs?

I found this page very interesting.




It certainly gives some very deep insights into personal experiences of terminations and some proffesional ones.

Nerd, I still dont get why you are getting your knickers in a twist (panties in a bunch) over a womans right to choose.

You say people are people, well good for you, you have managed to work out that saying the thing that is the thing I am saying it is, is the thing I am saying it is.

Cheese is cheese, Theres another one for you.

Lets tell you again under NEITHER medical nor legal definitions are feotuses prior to 24 weeks people. Yes we are terminating them but their life is wholly dependant on the life of the mother.

As any potential life is ENTIRELY dependant on the life of the mother what right have you got to dictate anything unless you are the mother in question?

Are you going to ban pregnant women from smoking and drinking, those activities can kill unborn ikkle cutie pie babies (I am deliberately using emotive language to sway you in favour of joining the campaign to ban preganant women from drinking, smoking, taking drugs, eating tuna (mercury), eating mayonaise or soft cheese.) and cause birth defects.

You are simply attempting to force PEOPLE, women to be specific to follow your rules cause it makes you feel good. If you really want to save PEOPLES lives from being needlessly and randomly destroyed why not stand on Pnnsylvania avenue waving placards that ask for a ban on cluster bombs?

"As any potential life is ENTIRELY dependant on the life of the mother what right have you got to dictate anything unless you are the mother in question?"

Don't you see what you're saying?

"As any person on welfare is ENTIRELY dependent on the taxpayer, what right have you got to dictate anything unless you are the taxpayer in question?"

Nerd42

Que

It almost pains me to do this, but I'm going to do it anyway because sometimes it's fun...

"As any person on welfare is ENTIRELY dependent on the taxpayer, what right have you got to dictate anything unless you are the taxpayer in question?"

Nerd42: I have no idea of your personal circumstances. I'm going to assume for a moment that you pay tax, rather than live off welfare. If you don't pay tax, pretend for a moment that you do.

Can you show me the ONE, single, solitary welfare claimant who is solely and entirely dependent on you and no other person in the world?

Can you tell me how uncomfortable it is for you, the taxpayer, to share your bloodstream with that welfare claimant?

I'm interested to know how much pain you're in, having to physically carry them everywhere you go, have them pressing on your bladder the whole time and causing you backache.

Oh, and have you noticed your dependent welfare claimant affecting your mood and appetite?

I'm curious how inconvenient it is for you, supplying them with their oxygen? Do you use bottled gases, or you do exhale into their lungs with your every breath? I'm just curious how it works you understand...

Are you starting to see why your analogy is just a little bit... well, STUPID, for want of a better word?

H.

Hi again researcher,

I have left you a message on one of your conversation threads already with the following info -

You need to activate your personal space (that’s your ‘homepage’) and you can do this by using the 'edit page' button on the rhs of the page or by clicking on this shortcut >> <./>UserEdit?masthead=1</.>. Just type anything – even just hello to start off will do, and click update. Once that is done a friendly ACE, like myself will drop by your page and leave a welcome message with some tips and hints to get you started!


Meanwhile - if you want to keep track of a conversation, we often just type something like "bookmarking" in a conversation to keep our place in it. Alternatively if you just wish to be notified of any further posts in a conversation thread then at the bottom of a page is an option to be subscribed to it, click on this and any further posts will be be updated on your personal space

Mort

Yeah, but Hoo, the first one was rather stupid to begin with. I mean, unless you think a mother should be able to kill her 9 month old baby.

I'm having a hard time understanding why we're still arguing as though the 24 week viability criterion wasn't, well, stupid.

Researcher 247489 - post 932 was aimed at you. posting empty posts on 2 threads advising you on netiquette and activating your space could be considered a bit rude.

Do you need some help?
As this is a conversation about pregnancy and abortion, please post any problems you are having on my PS or the <./>aces</.> homepage, and we will be happy to help

Oh we know its stupid, but so are all the alternatives.

Hehe..which I suppose exposes the ultimate nature of this debate - we don't actually know cr*p enough about the issue to argue about it meaningfully, so in the meantime do we allow abortion or not? This of course becomes mucho grande problema since basically your two camps in opposition are the religious and the sociologists. So pick your favorite team and vote. Rah rah rah.



(Go sociologists! )

Could this be the essential dichotomy or perhaps trichotomy this question invokes?

Church and state should be separate in a multi-belief country and world. But state must legislate and in doing so impinge on the world of the religious, much like religion makes laws and rules of behaviour which conflict with state.

Science must be proveable but has theories, those being statements which are supported by the majority of fact. This contradicts both state and religion which not only do not have such proofs but are supported by faith and/or majority rule.

Is it any wonder that we can't muddle through when the closest thing we have to absolute scientific truth is unproveable, the closest thing we have to absolute faith is in the mind alone, and the closest thing we have to good government is the statement *Democracy is the worst of all governments until something better comes along.*

Just my

Did someone just call me a sociologist?